Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered two civil appeals by special leave arising from a dispute over the renewal of a leave and licence for a shop counter at the Interstate Bus Terminal. The appellant, the Deputy General Manager (redesignated as Deputy Director, ISB), had granted the first respondent, Sudarshan Kumari, a leave and licence on 15 May 1992 at a concessional rate of 54% of the licence fee on compassionate grounds as she was the widow of a freedom fighter. The respondent filed a renewal application on 21 March 1994, which was later found not signed by her. A show cause notice dated 6 May 1994 asked her to hand over vacant possession of the counter by 6 June 1994. In response, she filed Writ Petition No. 2483 of 1994 in the High Court of Delhi on 23 May 1994 seeking to restrain the appellant from ejecting her and to direct renewal of the licence. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was also not signed by her. The appellant filed a counter-affidavit on 24 October 1994 bringing the forgery to the High Court's notice. When the respondent appeared on 15 November 1994, the High Court compared her signatures taken in open court with those on the Vakalatnama and affidavits and found they were not consistent. At that stage, the respondent sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, which the High Court granted by order dated 15 November 1994. The Supreme Court found that the respondent's rejoinder affidavit filed in this Court was also not signed by her; someone else had signed it on her behalf and it was attested by a Notary. The Court observed that this was the third case where Notaries had misused their liberty by issuing false attestations and indiscriminately attesting affidavits of parties who had not been properly identified. The original rejoinder affidavit showed that one Notary had initially attested it and later cancelled it without verifying the valid ground for cancellation; it was then attested by another Notary, Sunder Sham Kumar, on 1 November 1994. The admitted position was that the respondent herself had not signed and had asked someone else to sign, so the person who signed before the Notary was neither the respondent nor known to the Notary, and no one identified her before him. The Court concluded that some Notaries were absolutely misusing the licence granted to them without proper verification. On the merits, the Court noted that the renewal application was not signed by the respondent, and her affidavit and Vakalatnama were also not signed by her, making it obvious that she had taken the licence and assigned it to someone who committed forgery. When the Court asked learned counsel for the respondent the name of the real person actually running the shop, counsel stated that the party does not divulge that person's name. Under these circumstances, the Court held that the compassionate ground and the liberties given were being abused. Therefore, the High Court was not right in giving liberty to withdraw the writ petition and to file another writ petition on the same cause of action. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6122 of 1995 and dismissed the appeal by Sudershan Kumari arising out of SLP (C) No. 9464 of 1995 with costs. The Registry was directed to issue a notice to the Notary to show cause why he should not be prosecuted and punished for attesting false affidavits of impersonators and why his licence should not be cancelled, and the matter was to be posted immediately after service of notice on the Notary.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Writ Petition - Liberty to Withdraw - Not mentioned - High Court of Delhi granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition despite finding that signatures on Vakalatnama and affidavits were not consistent with respondent's admitted signatures. Supreme Court held that since the renewal application, affidavit, and Vakalatnama were not signed by the respondent, forgery was obvious; therefore, the High Court erred in granting liberty to withdraw and file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Held that liberty to withdraw should not be granted when pleadings are forged (Paras 1-2). B) Legal Profession - Notaries and Attestation - Misuse of Notarial Powers - Not mentioned - A Notary attested an affidavit without verifying the identity of the deponent; an earlier attestation was cancelled without valid ground and re-attested by another Notary on November 1, 1994. The Court observed that some Notaries were absolutely misusing the licence granted to them by attesting false affidavits of impersonators. Held that notaries must properly identify persons signing documents; Registry directed to issue notice to the Notary to show cause why he should not be prosecuted and his licence cancelled (Paras 1-2). C) Administrative Law - Compassionate Grounds - Abuse of Concessional Leave and Licence - Not mentioned - A leave and licence was granted to the widow of a freedom fighter at a concessional rate for a shop at Interstate Bus Terminal. The respondent did not sign the renewal application or court pleadings, and her counsel did not disclose the person actually running the shop. Supreme Court found that the compassionate ground was misused and the licence was assigned to someone who committed forgery; respondent's appeal was dismissed with costs and appellant's appeal allowed. Held that compassionate grounds cannot be abused to benefit unidentified third parties (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in granting liberty to the respondent to withdraw her writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action; whether the respondent was entitled to renewal of the leave and licence; and whether the Notary misused his powers by attesting false affidavits.
Final Decision
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6122 of 1995 was allowed; the appeal by Sudershan Kumari arising out of SLP (C) No. 9464 of 1995 was dismissed with costs. Registry directed to issue notice to the Notary to show cause why he should not be prosecuted and punished for attesting false affidavits of impersonators and why his licence should not be cancelled; matter posted immediately after service of notice.
Law Points
- Compassionate grounds cannot be abused
- Court should not grant liberty to withdraw a petition when pleadings are forged
- Notaries must verify identity of deponents before attestation
- False attestation and impersonation are serious misconduct
